Dr Drew - Medicine and Media: Unmasking Modern Healthcare
Joining me today is the renowned medical expert and addiction specialist, Dr. Drew. You can find more of Dr. Drew’s work at https://drdrew.com - don’t forget to check out his live show “Ask Dr. Drew” streaming on Rumble!In our conversation, we discussed how Dr. Drew’s perspective on Fauci has evolved, the reasons behind the surge in excess deaths, Dr. Drew’s defense of Rogan’s COVID protocol, and delved into topics related to addiction and mental health. --💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
He's a board certified physician and legacy celebrity talent with over 35 years of national radio, New York Times best-selling books and countless tele-shows bearing his name.
You can check out his work at drdrew.com plus he's on Rumble streaming with his show Ask Dr. Drew.
Now let's get into our conversation.
Dr. Drew, thanks for joining us.
It's great to see you, sir.
As we were just starting to mention before the mics heated up, we were together a few years ago.
We did a speech together about recovery.
As I think about our last meeting and then this one, many roads have been traveled.
Would you have imagined the world would evolve the way it has?
No, and the only people that did imagine it were kind of peripheral, zealous, fringe evangelists that were at the time regarded as conspiracy theorists.
I always felt that in our conversations Because we're talking about medicine, we were talking about mental health, we were talking about addiction and wellness.
I know that in our previous conversations we would have touched on the social implications of a condition like addiction.
That addiction is somewhat related to social pressures.
We may even have got as far as saying that the pharmaceutical industry possibly exploits addiction.
We may not have been in a position to talk about Purdue And Big Pharma and the Sackler family and the way that the opioid crisis has been handled.
But, you know, I know that's the kind of thing we would have touched on before.
But as you say, we're in a very different territory now.
From your perspective, Doc, what lines have been crossed and how is it we've found ourselves here?
Well, I've become a student of history because of this and much to my shock, but I want to answer that two ways that are a little bit glib and a little bit just so.
One is, post-structuralism has taken hold in this country, in particular, in a way that has been destructive.
The idea of truth has been undermined, and the reality is there is a truth, and our goal should be to ascend to some approximation of truth.
We've forsaken that, and that has bled into science and everything, so that's a problem.
Number two, that's the sort of historical sort of note, but number two, You mentioned the Sackler family and the excesses of the opioid industry, but the real perpetrators of the opioid crisis were evangelical physicians.
In this country, and in the UK as well, pain medicine became this cudgel.
That went around and forced physicians, sound familiar now?
Forced physicians to make pain the fifth vital sign.
Pain was more important.
There should be no pain ever.
To the point where 90% of the Vicodin prescribed in the world was prescribed in this country.
That was not the drug company.
That was me and my peers.
Not me.
That was my peers.
And evangelical physicians are dangerous.
Fast forward to COVID.
In this country, we have a Deborah Birx who evangelizes for lockdowns.
An evangelical physician went state to state, governor to governor, and persuaded, frightened these governors that if they didn't lock down, they'd be killing people.
Same phenomenon, same playbook, same disaster.
It's interesting that we're talking about two subjects, both of which I'm fascinated by.
The impact of post-structuralism and relativism.
The idea that there perhaps is a degree of ambiguity.
And look, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are institutions that have been deemed just and granted authority that could benefit from open-ended analysis.
These are some of the areas of post-structuralism.
You know, not necessarily talking about semiotics and the semantic component of that, but certainly looking at power from an open-minded perspective.
But also, the idea that when you say evangelical physicians, it shows that there's a sort of component to prescribing medicine and issuing medical care that is emotional rather than practical.
These days, for sure!
For sure!
Not only emotional, but also social, because now we are having these movements in medicine where people are, you know, I was a scientist, I was a clinician, and the idea that we have social movements within medicine and focusing on things that are, I mean, it's good that we're paying attention to these things, but that those are sweeping us away from science is really very, very concerning.
Yeah, it's extraordinary and I don't know how or why that's happened because the post-structuralist idea, does that lead to the over-emotionalization of everything?
I would have thought that it was quite an academic, quite cold, atheistic, materialistic, rationalistic ideology and yet what we are talking about now is a type of hysteria within the medical profession.
But the hysteria was, we were all, the world, much to my amazement, seemed to have been prone to this hysteria.
You're absolutely right.
So, now, you know, again, I was giving you just so things that came to mind when you asked your initial question.
My other sort of frame is, and I know you'll agree with this, is we've had, particularly again in this country, a narcissistic turn.
The general trait structure of our personalities have gone towards what's called Cluster B, borderline sociopath, narcissist, and I'd not seen a lot of histrionic, but it was waiting in the background, clearly, with the hysterias right on the heels of it.
I can go on and on.
I wrote a book about that 20 years ago.
You know, it's something I can talk a great deal about.
I saw it coming, I predicted, and I knew that the liability of narcissism is scapegoating.
I knew there would be scapegoating, and I knew there would be mobs, and man, I didn't know it would look like this, though.
Do you think that this narcissism and this emergence of kind of pathological conditions that would have before been regarded as extraordinary and maybe even rare and certainly as problems, and it sounds like you're saying they've become normalized, is this because of individualism?
And what do you mean by that, that everyone's become borderline sociopaths?
So I'll tell you where I noticed it.
I'm an internist, but I worked in a psychiatric hospital for 35 years.
I ran their addiction services for 20 while I was practicing general medicine in a hospital outpatient setting.
I've been 40 years in medicine.
And in the early, mid-80s, when I first started working at the psychiatric hospital, I would look at all the admitting forms, you know, patients coming in, and I would see there was always a window where we put in the personality diagnoses.
And the psychiatrist would put in, I saw all kinds of things, dependent personalities.
And the full spectrum of the A, B, and C disorders that you find in the DSM-5.
I noticed toward the end of the 80s, all of a sudden I was seeing, in the female, predominantly borderline.
And by the 1990s, only cluster B.
That's all we admitted were Cluster B patients.
And I thought at the time, if you remember, I did a, excuse me, a radio show back then, and I was talking to people, you know, by the hundreds every night, and all I was hearing about was childhood trauma, childhood trauma, childhood trauma.
And the outcome of childhood trauma is commonly a Cluster B personality, at least trait, if not disorder.
Just to reiterate, so that I understand properly, Cluster B, can you just tell me what the indicators are again?
That's the borderline narcissist, sociopath, and histrionic.
Those are the Cluster B disorders.
They're considered the narcissistic disorders.
And so, having seen that evolution, I wrote a book in the mid, probably 2000, I don't know what it was, 8 or 10 or something.
Where we actually did personality inventories on celebrities, because I started seeing that they were really struggling with this stuff.
A lot of trauma.
Yeah, you're shaking your head.
And of course, we documented that they had a higher incidence of narcissistic traits than other populations.
And even our control population, we used our control population as business school students, and they were above previously documented average.
It was very clear.
Everything was moving in that direction.
And it was all childhood trauma.
That's the underlying, the underpinning issue.
And as you know, as we used to discuss, one of the rocket fuels for addiction is trauma.
So do you think that there's been a greater increase in trauma or a tendency to diagnose trauma?
What are the prevailing ambient factors that have caused this phenomenon?
So it took until The 2000s for my profession to go, oh, adverse childhood experiences affect people's mental health and health.
Hmm.
Amazing.
Isn't that amazing?
So they developed the A scale.
What is on the A scale, which are adverse childhood experience scale, things like divorce, domestic abuse, somebody in the family in prison, somebody using substances.
And if you have more than two of those, You're, and of course overt trauma and all those sorts of things we would think of as trauma, but in this world where families are decayed, where people are using substances, where there's a lot of violence and aggression, who isn't exposed to that?
It's extremely common to be exposed to adverse childhood experience and then add to that screens.
We have no idea how that's amplifying everything and what they're being exposed to there, whether that's an independent trauma So, here we go.
I mean, it is on.
And of course, of course, it's happening more than ever.
The only period of history that I could find similar experiences of that kind of abandonment, neglect, and abuse of kids was pre-revolutionary France.
And I wanted to write a chapter in my book about that, and I was told by the editor it was too speculative.
I said, look, there's going to be guillotines, there's going to be mobs.
That's what narcissists do.
They have so much unregulated aggression, they have to form mobs and focus it on somebody else.
And here we are now.
Cancellation, everybody.
Welcome to our world.
So if you have a culture that fetishizes the individual, that is histrionic and narcissistic, sociopathic, the characteristics that you laid out, one of the symptoms when that becomes ubiquitous is the emergence of scapegoating.
It has to, the sort of culture or the society requires it.
And you're saying revolutionary France, obviously with the guillotine, practiced that in a Visible, demonstrable and dramatic way.
But you're saying that our culture is bearing those signs also.
If something's happening at that scale, it can't be moving up through individuals, can it, Doctor?
There must be some sort of central social factor.
Well, I haven't thought about it that way.
What do you, uh, it's an interesting question.
You mean like somebody taking advantage of that and sort of, uh, amplifying it or manipulating it in some way?
It means, for me, my sense is that whether there was a radical increase in addiction, you think, well why would that be?
Is there the availability of substances?
Is there economic inequality?
Is there increased poverty?
What are the social factors that likely lead to epidemic proportions being reached?
I feel that you indicated at the beginning that the values of the culture have shifted, and I feel that that's true also.
On some level, and it's a difficult thing to entirely articulate, some people in our chat are saying the breakdown of the family, and I feel like we have lost our connection with God.
I feel that our values have become Narcissistic that even identity politics and I'm sympathetic to the civil rights movements around each of the categories but what I sense is that the individual has become the sort of apex of value that what you are as a person and what you feel and what you want is the kind of summit of the social values rather than who we are as a member of a community who we are as a member of a movement or even a nation or a religion yeah I think that I feel that that plays a part somehow
Yes, there's no doubt, right?
I mean, what are the first couple of steps of recovery from a substance use, which is letting go, not controlling everything, which means, you know, as many of my patients say, they feel like they're a piece of ass around which the whole world revolves.
None of that needs to let go.
You need to let go of being... No, no, no, no.
You're not the center of the universe.
And then for people to do that fully, they have to have some sort of concept of faith.
Something.
I don't care.
I don't know what that is for everybody.
It's kind of magical to me to some extent, but I know that it's necessary for people to fully let go of their self-centric Whether it's white-centric or Eurocentric or whatever-centric it is, they have to let go.
They have to let go and be open to what the world has.
Now, doing that, it sounds just so.
It sounds like everyone should be able to do that.
It isn't easy.
It's not easy to do that, really, and to find some sort of spiritual something.
It's hard for people, but I do think we miss it badly.
I've been saying there's a spiritual malady for 20 years.
You have too.
The last time we were together, that's one of the things we sort of agreed upon with clarity that there's something up.
How we fill that emptiness, to me, I don't claim to be the carrier of that information, but I do know we need to solve it.
Yeah you're right because of course we were talking before about addiction and you were kind enough to help me with my book Recovery I remember and I went on your radio show or podcast I can't remember what medium was flourishing at that time but I do know that when we did the live Yeah, it was a print and we were talking about that.
You agreed with my interpretation of the 12 steps is about having, as you just described, a spiritual awakening and the support of a community and ultimately being able to overcome the inclination towards a type of self-centeredness that you're describing in your cluster B diagnosis there.
I want to interrupt you because I left out one thing that I was going to comment on your last construct of how you were describing the lack of connection.
Lack of connection is really what you're talking about.
Lack of connection to other, lack of connection to community, lack of connection to God, lack of connection to self, frankly.
We are disconnected.
And guess what trauma does?
It disintegrates us, disconnects us.
But I want to make one more comment because I think people will assail us for saying people aren't connected to their community.
There is a phenomenon afoot right now I call grandiose caring, which is still the narcissism.
I care!
I care so much about this group and that!
I care!
I don't care what you care about.
If you actually care about somebody, Develop a skill, develop some sort of wisdom, and go and offer it to another person.
A person.
Don't stand on the stage and beat your chest and gnash your teeth.
That is grandiose caring, that is narcissism.
I'm glad you care, I want you to care about other people, but that is not going to help the present moment.
In Christianity, I know that it's significant to do God's work privately and quietly and with humility so that it doesn't become performative.
And I guess a component of the scapegoat in has become something that's often discussed virtue performed publicly.
The appearance of morality.
And I was thinking about the culture at the moment.
I was thinking, how are people getting it up, Dr. Drew, to talk about the Oscars or the Golden Globes, when there is this immersive sense that we are in some kind of crisis?
I was so fascinated to hear your diagnosis, because it's one that I agree with.
Because continually, from this odd globalist humanitarian perspective, people will continually cite Confident statistics around, well do you know more people have been pulled out of poverty than ever before and the standard of living this and this is better than ever and I always feel like, I don't know that that's the reality a lot of people are living in.
It feels like we're in a highly precipitous and dangerous moment in a massive crisis of meaning and this kind of shared psychopathy seems relevant.
Crisis of meaning.
Yes.
What does it mean to live a good life?
And it may well be that these measures, these instruments that we measure economic well-being and, you know, people being pulled out of poverty, all that stuff you just referenced, is not relevant to the crisis of the present.
I mean, it's always relevant.
Let's be fair.
People need to be safe.
They need to be able to, you know, but they need to be able to thrive.
If you don't get people, if people are in pain, they can't thrive.
Let's just be, let's just state it such, but the, the reality of the present moment may be something different.
Spiritual crisis, lack of meaning.
What does it mean to lead a good life?
What does that mean?
And when I say it, People and again, I only have this country by deeply embedded here.
So I have this as my reference point.
They confuse a good life with happiness and hedonic happiness.
You know, I'm sure you study Schopenhauer's.
You go from happy to wanting more happiness to happy to wanting more.
Hedonic happiness is a dead-end street.
It's nice.
It's good.
But eudaimonic happiness, as Aristotle called it, is something that's much more nourishing and is the source of a good life.
So we have to each of us figure out what that meaning is for us.
And there's some You know, people have thought about that for thousands of years, and there are people that have suggested certain things.
We might return to some of that stuff, perhaps.
Yeah, the inward generation of joy compared to the external application of pleasure is a confusion that seems to have been with us some time.
I was chatting to someone about Epicureanism, the sort of like Epicurus was kind of got associated with pleasure seeking, but someone explained to me recently, no, he wasn't about pleasure.
He was about joy.
And when we start talking about pleasure over joy and transient happiness, which is Can easily commodified is very distinct from the generation of independent joy joy coming from within joy in your nature.
You said independent joy i'm of the opinion i may be wrong about this but i always noticed that real joy tends to be a shared experience.
It's something that people have together, or at least it's amplified in such a way that it becomes more substantial when it is experienced with at least an other, if not many others.
Yes, I think that's a fair assessment.
Although sometimes when I think of someone like Yogananda, like he's talking about there being an ever-present bliss
that we're blocked off from because of layers of samskara and layers of injury, and I try sometimes to contemplate
what does Christ, what's meant by the kingdom of heaven being within?
So there's no doubt, I don't wanna double down on the kind of individualism that you and I
are both decrying, and I reckon that there's a certain joy that can be derived from relationship and service,
but the idea that, what I'm trying to establish and to explain is that as a recovering addict,
the idea that pleasure is gonna come from the outside, whether it's through sex or through food
or through heroin or alcohol, that I can consume somehow pleasure
rather than through service and good conduct.
Through right conduct, joy will be generated as a byproduct rather than as the aim.
Isn't right conduct something that is in short supply also?
You know, Kant's first principles.
I just, you know, I always think it's kind of amusing.
I mean, his first principle was, of course, that, you know, behave as though your behavior can be judged as universal principle, which is essentially another way of saying behave in such a way that people can see all your choices, as though there's a camera going at all times.
And guess what, everybody?
Now there is a camera going at all times.
So you are going to be judged.
So you might as well fall in line.
Okay, before you answer the next question, Doctor, I have to tell our beloved viewers on YouTube, we need you to join us.
We need you to be a part of this movement because we're going to discuss stuff that would be contraband on a WHO platform, on a platform that listens to the British government when they say demonetize Russell Brand.
This is part of our movement. We need you with us right now. We're going
to be talking about Dr Drew's views on Joe Rogan and the Covid protocol that he espoused and
why the legacy media responded the way they did with that massive pile on. You know,
excuse me, isn't it weird when the whole media responds with one voice as if there is one
agenda to amplify and normalize the power that the agenda of the powerful.
We're talking about Fauci, we're talking about excess deaths, all sorts of stuff we wouldn't be able to do on YouTube.
So, click the link in the description and join us there.
And please, see you in a second, consider becoming a supporter of our content, becoming an Awaken Wonder to get an additional video every single week.
Brilliant ones on excess deaths, on farmer protests, and more importantly, perhaps, support our work so we can grow together.
So in particular, Doctor, do you consider that a seismic occurrence took place at the commencement of the pandemic and the regulations that were imposed and the attitudes around vaccine mandates?
Was that a pivotal moment in modern history?
Did it reveal something to us?
I believe it did.
It certainly revealed something to me.
And not just a something, a lot of things.
And it's so funny when I was thinking about how you frame your Identify your program as stay free.
I thought to myself, gosh, I used to my entire career.
I used to tell people to stay well, but my shift because of covid has been stay free also and that is that is astonishing to me that I always thought that was a foregone conclusion and the fact that we have to stand up and a stat and sort of Let's say a fight for that.
It's just astonishing to me who I talk to.
I mean, I was thinking about some of the interviews I used to do on HLN and CNN.
I used to interview white supremacists.
I used to interview people.
They're way out there just to see what they're all about.
I learned what I can from them.
Now you're Not allowed to even speak!
What is that?
Who I talk to?
And by the way, I was thinking about Joe Rogan when he got treatment for his COVID.
His doctor gave him ivermectin and a monoclonal antibody and a NAD infusions, two NAD infusions.
And the press, of course, freaked out about the ivermectin.
But the NAD infusions was the really interesting thing.
And an outlying treatment, that was outlying.
No one has ever suggested that.
And it seemed to help them.
And I thought, wow, how interesting.
And whatever the hell he does with his doctors is his effing business.
Between the two of them, nobody has any business even directing their attention in that direction, let alone commenting on it.
It's disgusting.
It is disgusting that people feel at their privilege to intervene and to try to disrupt basic relationship, basic liberties.
That's mind-boggling to me.
Like you said, it became hysterical, it became political, they were unable to constrain themselves.
There was a concerted legacy media effort to shut him down, to silence and smear and disgrace him.
They dug up things from the past about him, his use of profane language.
It was extraordinary how that was coordinated and it revealed a degree of authoritarianism that, as you said, Doctor, we assumed was Off the menu.
Whether you're Democrat or Republican, we care about individual freedom and free speech.
Well, no, that isn't what's happening anymore.
That's not the dynamic.
Who knew, right?
I did never imagine that who you speak to would somebody would want to regulate or that they would... Again, this is the mob stuff.
This is mob.
This is scapegoating.
This is guillotines.
This is conframing the world as pure and impure.
It's this whole model of You know, it's a religious model, really.
They've gone bad, right, in terms of organized religion.
It's just come into this sort of social construct.
And just like they did in the French Revolution, you were never pure enough of a Republican, so you had to go on the guillotine.
And by Republican, I mean somebody who supported the New Republic.
They were called Republicans.
So, you know, first through the Jacobins, and then all the Jacobins got their heads cut off, and by the Sainte-Colette, and then Sainte-Colette and Robespierre got their heads cut off by the Royalists, and then the Royalists got put in prison by Napoleon.
It was one thing.
It does not go well, everybody.
You are in the interest of all to stop now.
Stop this nonsense now.
Doc, is this a good time for us to talk about the wellness company that are promoting and are partnering us with our content today that I believe you are affiliated with?
We've already done a promo for the wellness company for the medical kits, where in the event of an emergency, you would have in your home necessary medicines, including the controversial prize-winning Ivermectin, as well as a variety of other products.
Can you tell us what that kit is and what, in particular, what your affiliation with it is?
I'm a member of their chief medical board.
There is a variety of physicians on that board with differing opinions.
We're not all in complete unison on everything, but we all agree that the physician-patient relationship has been adulterated.
We were just talking about Joe Rogan and how people tried to adulterate his relationship with his doctor.
The physician is powerless in this country right now, so I am interested in empowering patients.
They should have access to things that they know how to use, that are simple to use, that we can teach them to use.
They can have backup with telehealth.
There's more efficient and certainly much less expensive ways to do that, and that's what the wellness company is all about.
There's many more things to come.
Pay attention.
We have some other readiness kits coming that I think you'll be amazed by.
When you think about it, of course you should have these things on hand.
They're easy to use.
You know how to use them.
And I'm just proud to be a part of their organization.
I'm a paid member of that board and I'm happy to be a part of it.
It's not prepper type stuff then.
It's not necessarily in the event of an emergency, you should have antibiotics, antivirals.
You think it's just a sort of a sensible thing for people to have in their home anyway?
Both.
I think, look, my wife is lucky because, you know, if it's an after hours situation and her physician's unavailable, I can kind of step in and help out.
It's not a great idea to treat your family, but there's certain things that are just so easy to use that people should just have.
And I've thought for When people travel, I give them a batch of medicines.
I teach them how to use them.
Here's how you use these things if this happens.
And guess what?
I've been doing that for 20 years.
Never been a problem.
Guess what?
Our travel kits are coming next.
Right, so it'll be things like antibiotics, antiparasitics, medicines that are likely to be useful in the event of a variety of kind of common conditions.
Common, urgent, after hours.
For God's sakes, don't go to an urgent care where you pay for all that real estate, all that equipment, all those employees.
You pay for that when you walk in there.
Our system could be infinitely more efficient and this is an attempt to bring it that way.
Well brilliant, well we'll post a link for that right now and I guess we're doing some kind of discount I would hope given that we are like affiliated in some way but we'll post that right now.
Thank you doctor.
Can we move elegantly onto the subject of excess deaths?
It's a difficult thing to talk about because of censorship as well as the fact that you know well take this example there's been an eight percent increase in excess deaths among children in the United Kingdom.
It's difficult to countenance that that means There's a higher likelihood that your own children are going to die.
Why is this?
And I saw recently a Channel 4 documentary that, interestingly, were one of the companies that attacked me recently, in conjunction with other legacy media organizations, simultaneously, working together on their investigation.
When they were talking about excess death, they literally did an item on the news.
There's a mystery thing.
People are just dying.
We don't know what it is.
Every single comment under the video is, we know what this is!
Everyone knows what this is!
Like, let's say, what's happening and why is there not an appetite to investigate this in a fearless and thorough way?
That is the bigger mystery, right?
That's the part that is nefarious, concerning, egregious.
Your country is beginning to have some hearings on this in the Parliament, though it's just getting started.
I've watched some of that.
They're being done well and properly and thoughtfully and non-hysterically.
And we have to be open to any and all explanation.
My own belief is, my suspicion is, I shouldn't say belief because it is science, my suspicion is we're going to find that the real culprit is the spike protein, however you are exposed to it.
And so the more exposure to spike, the more we're going to see difficulty.
It is clearly the pathogenic part of the virus.
And of course, many of the vaccines, that's what we're creating to create the immune reaction, is more spike.
And maybe some people produce more spike than others.
Something.
We'll find out.
But it is going to be the spike.
But the astonishing thing Is that there, there are more people dying in this excess death pandemic than died in COVID.
And yet we shut the world down for that.
What is going on here?
I'm not saying on any given day, there's more people dying.
I'm saying the cumulative effect of excess deaths persisting year in and year out, we're going to easily surpass COVID.
And so why isn't there, forget the urgency, just.
Why is no country doing that?
This is the astonishing thing to me, that the whole world shut down, the whole world became hysterical, and the entire world is ignoring this thing.
Now, maybe they don't feel it's the place of government, maybe it's the medical system that has to come up with that.
And we take a long time to cull through stuff, to come up with the evidence of what's going on.
If you leave it just to the medical system, who's going to pay for the studies?
How's that going to get done?
Obviously, pharmaceutical is not very interested in it.
So I think government's going to have to step up and do it.
Yeah, I hope you're right.
Just to give you some information on the COVID inquiry in the UK, it's cost £145 million up until now.
They're delaying the significant questions indefinitely.
They've not said when they're going to continue the inquiry, but it will certainly be after the elections in the summer.
So there's the kind of opacity that's defined investigations in your country as well.
And it Obviously, being a skeptical person, I can't help but think that some powerful interests are being served or protected by the way that this is subsequently being handled.
And on that subject, Anthony Fauci has gone from being a sort of a hero, very deliberately portrayed in that manner as well, from late night talk shows, holding dance numbers, and we're all invited to adore Anthony Fauci.
He proclaimed himself as being The science, in inverted commas, and he also said publicly that people, when the right measures are imposed on them, will lose their ideological BS.
I wonder if you think that irreparable damage has been done in the institutions that surround American medicine, the CDC, the NIH, etc., due to Fauci's conduct and some of the odd financial relationships around that time.
Well, again, a lot packed into your questions, as always.
And I don't know about irreparable damage because they were adulterated and we didn't know it.
And thank God we know it now.
So maybe we can do something about it.
Maybe.
The fact that it had gone so far in a certain direction where regulators and pharmaceutical companies are so intertwined.
And by the way, the publishing infrastructure and major medical journals, this is all... I'm not allowed even to allow a drug rep into my office to give me a pen with a drug name on it.
And yet these guys go back and forth between and amongst each other and share each other's jobs and livelihoods.
It's just...
You got it.
This needs a very careful analysis.
Number one.
Number two, you mentioned how Dr. Fauci was a hero.
Dr. Fauci has been my hero my whole career.
He was the reason I got involved in radio.
I was deeply involved in treating AIDS patients, and in the mid-early 80s, when we were just starting to go from calling this thing grids to AIDS, he was saying, you know, you got to get out there.
He actually was telling us to go out and scare people.
Sound familiar?
That's going to be millions of dead, millions of dead!
And I dutifully did that, and I scared the hell out of a whole generation of high school students.
That they were all going to get AIDS, and they were all equally likely to get it, and they had to use a condom.
And I believe that.
I thought we stopped that from happening by scaring the crap out of these kids.
But I apologize now if that had adverse effect.
I see now the In the advantageous outcome of using fear, we should never use fear and panic in medicine.
It's unethical, and I apologize if my participation that harmed people, but we really had a, you know, that was a deadly illness with a 100% fatality rate.
Not a 1% fatality rate, a 100% fatality rate, and it was a bleak, dark period.
I was telling, as a fourth-year medical student, I was telling young men regularly They had six months to live, so there was a degree of panic.
I was never wrong, by the way.
So there's that.
Now, when this thing hit, you know, the things that I got criticized for were obviously, you know, when things go viral, you know, I'm sure you've noticed, it's never what you say.
It's always what somebody says you said.
That's never what you say.
And of course, no one ever comes back and goes, would you clarify that?
What did you mean?
Never, ever, ever.
And if you try, no, they keep saying something else other than what you've said, which then that goes viral.
It's just insidious.
It's disgusting.
But there we are.
That's how things go viral.
And when things are viral on me, the one thing they always cut out of my comments was the thing I actually got wrong.
Because the thing I actually got wrong was at the end of every comment I would say, please just listen to Dr. Fauci, listen to the CDC, they've been guiding my career, you can rely on these people to get us through it.
And I believed that until Dr. Fauci was in front of our government and they asked him whether we should, whether, you know, Dr. Fauci, you've closed down church practices out of doors, is it okay to go to a political demonstration?
And he looked and he went, I don't know what you're talking about.
And I thought, oh, he's been adulterated.
Something's wrong.
Something is something.
This is not the same man.
What is going on here?
And it just went from on and on and on from there.
So I kept expecting him to go back to his baseline reversion to the mean.
But it just it kind of never happened.
And it sort of was a misapplication of some of the same strategies we use back in the AIDS days.
It's a different time.
And that thing that those strategies are not useful, not good.
Probably weren't good then.
It's quite extraordinary and frightening, I would think, to be in a position where, necessarily, if you're a medical profession, you have to operate within institutions, because institutions, when they're good, are the housing of expertise and accumulative knowledge, but institutions, when they are bad, are the vessels for corruption, and it seems like you've almost experienced that metastasis.
Yeah, yeah.
It's been sort of an evolution.
And like I said, it went from stay well to stay free.
That's what my, that's my evolution.
And part of that is looking, then I started looking at a lot of things.
Look, medical literature.
I, during COVID, I read the journals religiously and carefully, and all of a sudden during COVID, all the science went one direction.
That is not science then.
Science is a back and forth, and it kind of moves as you come to understand the landscape of literature.
It moves in a certain direction.
You kind of develop a consensus.
It doesn't just go one way.
And I thought, there's something wrong with the editorial process, too.
Actually, I saved one journalist, not here on my desk right now.
But Annals of Internal Medicine, about two years into COVID, finally started writing some articles that were about budesonide and about fluvoxamine and about alternative treatments for early COVID.
I thought, oh!
My Annals of Original Medicine has returned.
They're back.
They're showing the full spectrum of what's out there.
But remember that Danish study that showed that a small percentage of the initial rollout of the vaccine was responsible for 90% of the adverse reactions?
I don't know if you know that study.
It was a great study done by a Danish researcher and physician.
It took her two years to get that published.
Two years!
Two years to publish something that should have been Just out and before us and top of mind.
Yes, yes.
Yes, because in a sense there were opportunities to intervene with what led to incidents of catastrophic incidents.
Yes, that's astonishing that there were so many examples of the narrative being controlled and directed.
Still now it's very difficult to talk about batches Because that indicates that the process was not reliable, that there was variation.
There are so many lines of inquiry that are just impossible.
I have a few questions, if it's okay, from people in our chat.
Primal Colin says, what are your opinions, Doctor, on, well, it's quite a lot of questions.
Disease X, mRNA slippage, SV40, and the New Zealand whistleblower data.
Maybe the whistleblower data, what do you think about that?
Because I suppose, I'm sure you're familiar, and potentially there could be 17 million Excess deaths based on that.
I've heard that figure elsewhere also.
I pulled that study recently.
I don't know what to make of anything right now.
I just know we need to continue to look and examine and try to figure things out.
Not get hysterical on any front.
Ascending to the truth takes time.
It's hard.
It's not about being right.
It's about trying to get to a clear understanding of what's going on here.
I don't know if you saw the Austrian study that came out also that Vinay Prasad put out, he put on Twitter, which was, I want to read you that one.
I actually pulled it up because that will really interest your audience, it seems to me.
Here it is.
We did not, this is an excellent study, well done, peer-reviewed.
We did not observe a significant vaccine effect from the fourth vaccine dose, COVID-19 deaths, during a time with already very low absolute risk for outcome, meaning the vaccine had no effect.
And they observe no individuals younger than 40 years died of COVID-19.
So why are we getting vaccinated at all?
This is the thing.
Let's say the risk of myocarditis is one in...
50,000.
It may be 1 in 800, but let's say it's just for the sake of argument, it's 1 in 50,000.
The risk of dying of COVID is zero under 40.
Why are we putting anybody at any risk of cardiac injury?
Why are we doing that?
And why pushing?
Why pushing so hard?
Especially we know the spike protein is the pathogen.
By the way, we have other vaccine alternatives.
What about Covaxin?
What about whole viral alternatives?
Why don't we, why don't we, if you want to push vaccine, how about those?
Why this one?
And why only this one?
Weird, right?
And then how do I give informed consent to a 22-year-old?
How do I do that?
When all of it is obscured and obfuscated, except to say, look, the recently published data suggests your risk of death is zero.
Do we want to talk about the potential adverse effects of the vaccine, given that your risk of death is zero from this illness?
I don't know.
I don't know.
For me, it seems like it was an extremely revealing period that I obviously come from a Different world in many regards, though there are crossovers in our experience and some of our perspectives.
But for me, the confirmation that you cannot trust authority, that various arms of the establishment work in conjunction in order to achieve favoured outcomes, that crises are utilised to impose power, that if there's an opportunity to introduce authoritarianism and Generate profit, it will be taken.
All of these sort of pre-existing biases, I would have to call them, appear to get like pretty significant ticks next to them over that couple of year period.
But isn't it astonishing?
I mean, you and I grew up in similar eras when at least, you know, question authority was our presumed position.
That's how we, and then We expected our press to speak to the people in power and to question the people in power.
That is flipped on its head, where people are signing on to authoritarianism and are becoming a part of the elites and reinforcing their excesses.
Okay, now we need to become a student of history, because that is not something that I would expect in your country or mine, and yet here we are.
By the way, the French, back to the French Revolution, the French youth have been pushing back on this.
They have been bristling about it since they were getting a vaccine mandate.
They were in the streets on Friday and Saturday night demonstrating against that.
They're saying, how's that liberty?
It's a founding principle of this country.
How is that liberty?
Yeah, in every protest movement, you can rely on the French to take it to extremes.
It's agricultural, we're dumping stuff in the street.
Yeah, thank God for the French, you have to say once in a while, even as an English person.
Yeah, it's become clear that the function of the media is to normalise and amplify the agenda of the establishment.
That's a sort of a paradigm that, you know, whether that's to introduce a new piece of technology, a new piece of legislation, to shut down a piece of dissent, it's become something that's become prevalent and You can candidly state in this space now.
Doc, we've got to wrap up now.
Thank you so much for your contribution and your participation.
And on a personal note, it's just lovely to see you again.
Really lovely and heartwarming.
It is lovely to see you too.
I don't know if you remember, but every time you and I talk together, we go, we've got to do more.
We need to spend more time together.
I'm feeling that now!
Yeah.
We should do this again.
We could have talked for another hour easily.
We could do a variety of things.
We could do things where we do questions and answers.
We talk about mental health, addiction, corruption, the duty of the physicians.